Integration of technical, cost, and schedule risks in project management

Abstract This paper describes a computerized method for integrating technical, cost, and schedule risk. This is significant because technical, cost, and schedule risk should and can be addressed within the context of a single analytical methodology. Technical, cost, and schedule preference are represented as the project manager's utility function, u ( TCS ). The expected value of the utility function is calculated for various alternatives, in the context of a decision tree. The Analytic Hierarchy Process is used to elicit the utility functions and to assign probabilities to the decision tree. The alternative with the maximum E [ u ( TCS )] is the implied alternative of choice.

[1]  Stan Schenkerman,et al.  Use and Abuse of Weights in Multiple Objective Decision Support Models , 1991 .

[2]  Farrokh Alemi,et al.  Restricting Patients' Choices of Physicians: A Decision Analytic Evaluation of Costs , 1989 .

[3]  Gordon B. Hazen,et al.  Does rolling back decision trees really require the independence axiom , 1987 .

[4]  Colin M. Sorrill.  Risk Analysis for Large Projects: Models, Methods and Cases , 1987 .

[5]  Warren R. Hughes.  A Note on Consistency in Utility Assessment , 1990 .

[6]  David D. Jensen,et al.  Applying Decision Analysis to Determine the Effect of Smoke Detector Laws on Fire Loss in the United States , 1989 .

[7]  Robert E. Jensen,et al.  International investment risk analysis: extensions for multinational corporation capital budgeting models , 1987 .

[8]  Dennis M. Buede.  Structuring Value Attributes , 1986 .

[9]  Amitava Dutta,et al.  Reasoning with imprecise knowledge to enhance intelligent decision support , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[10]  Jinoos Hosseini,et al.  Decision Analysis and Its Application in the Choice Between Two Wildcat Oil Ventures , 1986 .

[11]  Clinton P. Fuelling,et al.  A collective risk comparative study , 1987 .

[12]  Glenn E. Hachadorian.  Hierarchical determination of the risk of forced divestment to foreign owned enterprises in LDC's , 1987 .

[13]  Fatemeh Zahedi,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process—A Survey of the Method and its Applications , 1986 .

[14]  E. F. Lane,et al.  A CONSISTENCY TEST FOR AHP DECISION MAKERS , 1989 .

[15]  Ernest H. Forman.  AHP IS INTENDED FOR MORE THAN EXPECTED VALUE CALCULATIONS , 1990 .

[16]  P. Pfeifer,et al.  Pearson-Tukey Three-Point Approximations Versus Monte Carlo Simulation , 1991 .

[17]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  Decision trees and decision-making , 1990, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[18]  J. Ulvila.  Postal Automation ZIP + 4 Technology: A Decision Analysis , 1987 .

[19]  Paul C. Nutt,et al.  Selecting tactics to implement strategic plans , 1989 .

[20]  C. B. Chapman,et al.  Large engineering project risk analysis , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[21]  Dennis M. Buede.  Shafer-Dempster and Bayesian reasoning: a response to 'Shafer-Dempster reasoning with applications to multisensor target identification systems' , 1988, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[22]  S E Fienberg,et al.  Risk preferences for gains and losses in multiple objective decision making , 1986 .

[23]  D. Keefer,et al.  Three-Point Approximations for Continuous Random Variables , 1983 .

[24]  Ram Narasimhan,et al.  An Experimental Evaluation of Articulation of Preferences in Multiple Criterion Decision‐Making (MCDM) Methods , 1988 .

[25]  Derek W. Bunn,et al.  Forecasting Political Risk , 1978 .

[26]  Joanna R. Baker,et al.  Multiple Attribute Decision Making with Inexact Value-Function Assessment , 1990 .

[27]  Elke U. Weber,et al.  Descriptive and prescriptive models of decision-making: implications for the development of decision aids , 1990, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[28]  Gerald F. Smith,et al.  Representational effects on the solving of an unstructured decision problem , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[29]  Teddy Seidenfeld,et al.  Two perspectives on consensus for (Bayesian) inference and decisions , 1990, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[30]  Irving H. Lavalle,et al.  Note-Rolling Back Decision Trees Requires the Independence Axiom! , 1986 .

[31]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision Making, Scaling, and Number Crunching , 1989 .

[32]  J. Clarke.  The Application of Decision Analysis to Clinical Medicine , 1987 .

[33]  David M. Boodman,et al.  Managing Business Risk , 1987 .

[34]  T. Saaty.  Risk-Its Priority and Probability: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1987 .

[35]  Shu S. Liao,et al.  An Analysis of Risk and Return in the Defense Market: Its Impact on Weapon System Competition , 1986 .

[36]  Chelsea C. White,et al.  A survey on the integration of decision analysis and expert systems for decision support , 1990, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[37]  R. Vachnadze,et al.  Some applications of the analytic hierarchy process , 1987 .

[38]  Dominic A. Clark,et al.  Using predicate logic to integrate qualitative reasoning and classical decision theory , 1990, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[39]  T. F. Bott,et al.  Programme Planning with Logic Trees , 1989 .

[40]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[41]  Horst A. Eiselt,et al.  Some Extensions of Domain Criteria in Decision Making under Uncertainty , 1990 .

[42]  William R. Spillers,et al.  Another look at design theory , 1990, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[43]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  ELICITATION OF SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF DECISION-MAKING * , 1978 .

[44]  Behnam Malakooti,et al.  A decision support system and a heuristic interactive approach for solving discrete multiple criteria problems , 1988, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[45]  Samuel Holtzman,et al.  Intelligent decision systems , 1988 .

[46]  George P. Huber,et al.  METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITIES AND MULTI‐ATTRIBUTE UTILITIES*† , 1974 .